All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the remaining issues raised by the reviewers, so that in the present form the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Professional, clear English is used. No further comments.
No further comments.
No further comments.
No further comments.
The authors are invited to address the few remaining issues raised by the reviewers.
no comment
no comment
I would first like to thank the authors for their efforts in taking responsibility for the comments made. For my part, only one doubt persists regarding the statistical analysis section. Although the authors mention that they used the Wilcoxon test to determine the differences, the previous step of applying a statistical test to determine the distribution of the data through a hypothesis test and not only through a visual inspection of the distribution is still missing. I believe that this is a relevant step to ensure the replicability of the information and should therefore be made explicit.
No new remarks regarding content of the manuscript and data. Only regarding spelling:
- Check lines 238 and 254.
None
None
None
Please provide a complete point-by-point revision to the issues raised by both reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is presented with a good contextual framework, however, there are grammatical errors that still deserve a review by a fluent English speaker. Moreover, the clarity of the results seems to me debatable given some statistical procedures that require attention.
The manuscript is aligned with the aims and scope of the journal and complies with the ethical requirements for research on human subjects. However, some of the procedures decreed in the methodology need to be deepened and the statistical analyses performed need to be reviewed in depth
The manuscript should be improved in terms of information related to recording procedures and statistical analysis to ensure replicability.
Please rewrite lines 39-41, it reads as an unfinished sentence.
Please reread line 81 and 83, check spelling.
Lines 131-136 should be described under results section.
Please provide reference for lines 250 - 252 (This line was added by you after my peer-review last time. I had attached a review that concluded this, thus you may add it as a reference to support your statement): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deman.2021.100035
Good, no comment
Good, no comment
Very minor revision needed for some spelling, a sentence not placed in the right paragraph and add a reference to a statement in your discussion.
The authors should address the concerns raised by the reviewers and improve the information, including statistics, to make their experimental design clearer. Conclusions should be considered in the light of the results obtained.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
The manuscript is presented with a good contextual framework, however, there are grammatical errors that deserve a review by a fluent English speaker. Moreover, the results provided do not clearly confirm the hypotheses put forward by the authors.
The manuscript is aligned with the aims and scope of the journal and complies with the ethical requirements for research on human subjects. However, some of the procedures decreed in the methodology need to be deepened and the statistical analyses performed need to be reviewed in depth.
The manuscript should be improved in terms of information related to recording procedures and statistical analysis to ensure replicability. Given these comments, the conclusions of the paper are not entirely clear.
Most important issues:
• Description of cut-off values or when abnormality is seen in oVEMP and cVEMP testing and balance testing.
• Description of inclusion criteria (see below)
• Grammar / spelling
Strengths:
• Good academic English, very easy to read
• DPN assessment
• Association between falling, vestibular function and DPN
• Clear data tables
Large inclusion of participants compared to previous research for oVEMP/cVEMP testing in diabetes.
No comment
No comment.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.